Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the tender process for construction of eight Primary Health Centers in Jalgaon district. The petitioner, a private limited company registered as a contractor with Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, participated in an e-tender invited by the Executive Engineer (Works Division), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, via Public E-Tender Notice No.05/2020-21 dated 19 November 2020. The tender required online submission of bids with technical and financial components, and Clause 6 mandated a five-day gap between opening of technical and financial bids. The original deadline for bid submission was 14 December 2020, with technical bid opening on 16 December 2020. The petitioner, citing internet/server issues, requested extension; the Additional Chief Executive Officer issued a Brief Tender Notice on 15 December 2020 extending the deadline to 17 December 2020. The petitioner submitted its bid for Item No.3 (construction of Primary Health Center at Lohara) on 17 December 2020 and deposited Rs.3,90,500 as tender fee and earnest money. The petitioner's quoted amount was significantly lower than the estimated cost and lower than respondent No.5's bid. However, when bids were opened, the petitioner was held ineligible for the financial bid because it had not submitted the requisite declaration on letter-head in PDF format as required by the tender conditions. The petitioner contended that technical and financial bids were both opened on 29 January 2021 in violation of the five-day gap, and that it was not given an opportunity to cure the deficiency. It also alleged that respondent Nos.2 to 4 moulded tender conditions to favour respondent No.5. The respondents argued that the declaration was mandatory and could not be submitted after the bid opening; that the deadline extension was granted at the petitioner's request because it lacked the document; that technical bids were opened on 21 December 2020 and financial bids on 29 January 2021, leaving a 39-day gap; and that judicial review in tender matters is extremely limited. Respondent No.5 contended that the petitioner had suppressed material facts and that the alleged website slowness complaint was false, as no other bidder had complained. The court, after considering the arguments, found that the scope of writ jurisdiction in contractual matters of the State is narrow and interference is warranted only on grounds of arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of essential tender conditions. It held that the requirement of online submission of declaration was mandatory and the petitioner could not cure the defect after the financial bid was opened. The court also accepted the respondents' chronology of bid openings and found no breach of Clause 6. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the decision to reject the petitioner's technical bid and declining to interfere with the tender process.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 - Scope of Judicial Review in Contractual Matters - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The court examined whether rejection of petitioner's tender in a construction contract for Primary Health Centers was amenable to judicial review; it reiterated that scope of writ jurisdiction in State contractual matters is extremely limited and interference is warranted only if decision is arbitrary, mala fide or violative of essential tender conditions. Held that petitioner failed to establish any such ground, so no interference was called for (Paras 2,9). B) Contract Law - Tender Conditions - Mandatory Requirement of Online Declaration - Tender Document dated 19.11.2020, Clause 6 and Instructions to Bidders - Petitioner was held ineligible for financial bid because it did not submit requisite declaration on letter-head in PDF format as required by tender conditions; court found this requirement mandatory and not a curable procedural irregularity, and absence of document at time of bid submission could not be remedied after opening of financial bid. Held that rejection of technical bid was justified (Paras 4-5, 8). C) Administrative Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Opportunity to Cure Deficiencies - Government Circular dated 17.9.2019, Clause (1) - Petitioner contended that it was not given sufficient opportunity to comply with deficiencies, but respondents pointed out that deadline was extended from 14.12.2020 to 17.12.2020 specifically at petitioner's request; court found petitioner had adequate opportunity and could not rely on circular to fill lacuna after discovering disqualification. Held that there was no violation of natural justice (Paras 6, 8, 12). D) Tender Process - Evaluation of Bids - Timeline Between Technical and Financial Bid Opening - Tender Document dated 19.11.2020, Clause 6 - Petitioner alleged that technical and financial bids were opened on same day (29.01.2021) in violation of five-day gap requirement, while respondents asserted technical bids were opened on 21.12.2020 and financial bids on 29.01.2021, a gap of 39 days; court accepted respondents' chronology and found no breach of Clause 6. Held that tender process was not vitiated by any timeline irregularity (Paras 5, 8, 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether rejection of the petitioner's technical bid for non-submission of mandatory declaration was arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice; whether tender process followed by respondents violated Clause 6 requiring five days gap between technical and financial bid openings; whether the petition warranted judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the tender process and rejection of the petitioner's financial bid were not arbitrary or violative of natural justice; the petitioner was not eligible due to non-submission of mandatory declaration, and the court declined to interfere with the tender process.
Law Points
- Scope of judicial review in contractual matters is limited
- tender conditions must be strictly complied with
- mandatory requirement of online declaration cannot be cured after bid opening
- writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised to interfere with tender processes unless arbitrariness
- mala fides or violation of essential conditions is shown
